Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: As part of the Himalaya region, the Annapurna Conservation Area is a globally important biodiversity area.
Evidence B:Largest continguous conservation area in a country with extremely high biodiversity.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: In accordance with the spatial resource provided.
Evidence B:Carbon sequestration data provided with high figures - especially for forested area.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Uses a community stewardship model with a roadmap for transferring management to indigenous peoples and local communities through a Council.
Evidence B:Still managed by an NGO - but project is led by IPLCs with intention to hand over manageent to them.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Relationship between communities and the project site well described, including in terms of religious significance.
Evidence B:Well described.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Highlights urgent action in the light of the threats described including from climate change, large infrastructure projects including hydropower and roads.
Evidence B:Climate change, COVID-19 and additional infrastructure based incursions into the region will continue to cause stresses and threats.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Strong customary law at the community level is coupled with national forestry and environmental policies
Evidence B:Enabling policies in place but implementation continuously delayed. Time for the transfer of rights to take place.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Strong customary law at the community level is coupled with national forestry and environmental policies
Evidence B:Policies are positive - implementation slower than desired.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: NEFIN describes relevant projects for undertaking IPLC conservation.
Evidence B:A number of projects have taken place - the need now is to go to scale and have a genuine devolution of rights.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Provision of co-financing comes from the organization as well as synergies with potential local government investments. Needless to say in the further development of the proposal, these will need to be concrete.
Evidence B:Local funding from municipalities and community match and contributions should not be underestimated in terms of importance.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The approach seeks to promote local indigenous institutions to achieve a variety of responsible environmental stewardship goals for global benefit.
Evidence B:Strong justification from an indigenously led organization.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: A series of concrete activities at different scales with logical sequencing, with an impressive focus on community partnerships. The organization might be encouraged to also activities that increase the uptake of the project with national government structures.
Evidence B:Further clarity on livelihood and green enterprise opportunities could be further developed.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: A series of concrete activities at different scales with logical sequencing, with an impressive focus on community partnerships. The organization might be encouraged to also activities that increase the uptake of the project with national government structures.
Evidence B:A great deal depends on government willingness to transfer rights to local conservation committees.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: With the budget range, the organization might be encouraged to also activities that increase the uptake of the project with national government structures.
Evidence B:Well aligned - potential for impacts is very good.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: These will need to be developed in the proposal
Evidence B:Co-financing beyond local municpal and community inputs and small projects remains a challenge. links to GCF or other GEF programmes would be a good idea.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: As per the values given in the proposal
Evidence B:Moderate targets - partially constituted by existing forests and conserved areas.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The organization might be encouraged to identify a few key indicators to make monitoring more streamlined.
Evidence B:Good planning - more detail needed on green enterprises perhaps.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Highly dependent on degree of transfer of rights and ownership
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: As per the information provided in the proposal
Evidence B:Well assessed and positioned.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Provides a plan for gender mainstreaming - in the development of a full proposal, this might be better guided to also include an understanding of any gender differentiated livelihood approaches, and how the eventual programme will nurture women-centered approaches that may be different from a typical mainstream approach.
Evidence B:Good thought process and articulation of gender strategy.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Potential for replication in other areas.
Evidence B:Potential for some transfer to other protected areas and conservation zones
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:National IPLC organiation (NEFIN) project - full engagement if local groups appears strong but not as well articulated.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Fairly interesting track record of projects, and staff composition
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NEFIN is well linked to other organizations and IPLC networks.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:No GEF experience but rounded staff team.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Appears strong.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Excellent response and good experience developing safeguards.